safewise logo
78 Sunny

Planning Board Minutes 09/15/2009

SOUTH BERWICK PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
September 15, 2009

ROLL CALL
Present: John Stirling, Mimi Demers, Bill Straub and Jim Fisk (Planner).

Not Present: Cheryl Dionne, Richard Clough and Joel Moulton.

Susie Scott, Assistant to the Town Planner, was taking minutes.

ELECTION OF CHAIR PRO-TEM
Motion by Mr. Stirling, second by Mrs. Demers to elect Mr. Straub as Chair Pro-Tem in order to conduct meeting, passed unanimously.

CALL TO ORDER
Chair Pro-Tem Straub called the Planning Board meeting to order at 7:00 PM.

MINUTES APPROVAL
August 18, 2009 - Planning Board Regular Meeting: Minutes were tabled because Mr. Stirling was unable to vote for minutes approval, as he was not at this meeting.

PUBLIC AUDIENCE
- none.
NEW BUSINESS
Chair Pro-Tem Straub requested New Business be moved ahead of Correspondence and Old Business to accommodate the applicants for SP#09-04 who were in intendance for this hearing.

1. SP#09-04; Single-Family Residence in Shoreland Zone - Paul and Scott Roberts: Site Plan Review.

The applicants, Paul (Father) and Scott (Son) Roberts were in attendance to discuss their application.

Mr. Fisk gave a brief overview of application materials. He discussed access to the property per deeded ROW, passing both the England and Burns properties. The ROW is owned by the Roberts', Lot 11A, and both the England and Burns properties have access to the ROW. The applicants are proposing to locate the building outside the current Shoreland zone setback of 100 feet, and wanted to ensure this setback prior to the proposed Shoreland zone setback increased to 250 feet, which would eliminate a building lot. Per the Chapter 302 rule, applications heard with substantial review under the current zoning would be pending and exempt from the future amended setback increase.

Paul Roberts, co-applicant, discussed his mother having owned a large lot encompassing the lots which are now those of the Roberts, England and the applicants, and how in the 1980's those lots were subdivided out to form Lot 11A. The Town Council at the time provided Mr. Roberts a letter stating he had a lot of record although frontage issues were not stated in the paperwork. They would like to establish the location of the frontage for Lot 11A, and confirm the 100' boundary setback under current shoreland zone standards.

Mr. Fisk stated that a split of this lot would not require a Planning Board permit, and the applicant would have the ability to cross the proposed RP zone if it were to extend across the easement. There currently is plenty of land in the back for a house lot. This lot did not fall under the designation of a Limited Residential area because of not having been built upon. Future development would require an onsite soil inspection for septic suitability.

Mrs. Demers questioned if the applicant would have to begin construction within the next year.

Mr. Fisk stated that the Planning Board review of the application at this meeting creates a pending application status, and that the DEP has not fought a pending application of this type. Mr. Fisk discussed what is considered vested rights. He stated that the DEP administrator advised him to have the applicant start the building permit process. The Planning Board has the option to either table the site plan review and ask for further information, or grant a conditional approval of the site plan.

Mrs. Demers noted that property and boundary lines are not consistent from one map to another including the Town's tax maps.

Scott Roberts clarified that the maps he produced for the application were created from data provided by State GIS, and noted that different data sources show different property boundaries.

Mr. Fisk confirmed the maps provided by Mr. Roberts used the same data source as those in the Planning office.

Mr. Straub discussed interest in viewing a final plan layout to understand final impacts, and would like to grant conditional approval with further information.

Mr. Fisk clarified that the site plan permit is in effect from one year of the approval date for commencement of work, and two years for substantial completion. The applicant may ask to extend a permit for market reasons, subdivision of property, Shoreland zoning, or other issues, and the Board generally grants a permit extension. It is the responsibility of the permit holder to work within the allotted timeframe.

Scott Roberts stated his goal for the property was to split, extend the ROW to the properties, and retire to this location. He noted the closest utility pole is located at and services the England property.

The Board requested the applicant submit the Board a letter of request in a year's time specifying updated status of the property. The Board noted the applicants have clearly demonstrated there are adequate soils for building.

Motion by Mr. Stirling, second by Mrs. Demers to approve SP#09-04, Single-Family Residence in the Shoreland Zone with the condition that at such time the project moves forward with construction, site plan materials be presented to the Planning Board prior to permitting, passed unanimously.

Mr. Fisk noted that applicant showed a great use of GIS in their application preparation.

2. MSP#07-01; Multi-Use Site Plan - 25 Academy Street: Request for permit extension.

Mr. Fisk stated the Town had received complaints from a neighbor this past August regarding the state of the building site. He phoned the applicant to remind them their permit was soon to expire. Both Mr. Fisk and Fire Chief Gorman met with the applicant the Friday prior to the Labor Day weekend, and discussed the applicant having to show a commitment to the project. Chief Gorman was prepared to petition the Town Council for building demolition at this site. Mr. Fisk noted that since the meeting, the applicant has shown commitment in both materials and labor. He recommends the Planning Board conduct a site walk to discuss whether a 3-unit building was still a feasible project. The applicant was granted a permit for a conversion of a 2-unit to a 3-unit building. If the applicant were to build anew under provisions for New Construction, there would not be enough road frontage for 3 units. Due to the Ordinance being unspecific to define reconstruction, the applicant can reuse the existing structure in its' mostly diminished state, and add the third unit.

The Board discussed concerns regarding the applicant having not worked on this project for over a year and leaving it in an abandoned state with various safety hazards. The Board is uneasy that the applicant may once again falter even if given a permit extension.

Mr. Fisk stated that the applicant, in showing some commitment to the project, did bring in crews from out of state to complete work in the past week. Mr. Fisk stated he could not speak to the applicant's plans or schedule.

The Board questioned whether the site plan permit timeframe could be changed for this application.

Mr. Fisk responded that the permit has a set term but he could contact MMA for their opinion. He noted the board could request a financial assurance from the applicant, and the CEO has visited the site daily, and has approved everything per the plan requirements. Mr. Fisk noted the Board could table this request, and it would fall under a pending review status.

Motion by Mr. Straub, second by Mr. Stirling to table the permit extension request until the Board has conducted a site visit, met with the applicants at the next Planning Board meeting for further review, and the Planner has investigated financial assurances and timeframes, passed unanimously.

Mrs. Demers was assured by Mr. Fisk that this request would remain pending.

The Board agreed to hold off on scheduling a site walk until a full Board was present to decide on a date.
CORRESPONDENCE
1. Salmon Falls River, Greenbelt Plan: Provided by Pat Robinson and Dolores Leonard.
The Planning Board commended and congratulated the Conservation Commission for a job very well done. The Board inquired if the Plan could be posted to the website. Mrs. Scott will follow up with the possibility of putting the document on the website.
OLD BUSINESS
- none.
OTHER
1. Work Plan: Continued.

Mrs. Demers inquired as to possible items for further Board review as deemed a priority by the Planner.

Mr. Fisk responded that both Access Management for Subdivisions and Road Standards should be a priority for Board review.

Mrs. Demers noted that subdivisions continue to get a variance for road length.

2. Election of Chair Pro-Tem: See above.
MEMBER COMMENTS
Mr. Straub: Requested unofficial copies of previously adopted Table A and B for the next meeting.

Dates & Times for Upcoming Meetings:
October 6, 2009 - 7:00 PM Planning Board Regular Meeting
October 20, 2009 - 7:00 PM Planning Board Regular Meeting

Motion by Mrs. Demers, second by Mr. Stirling to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned without objection at 8:03 PM.

ATTESTED: Susie Scott
Susie Scott,
Assistant to the Director of Planning & Economic Development